Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Removed/2004/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page contains nominations from the main collaboration of the week page which have been removed due to lack of votes or because they're unsuitable nominations from November 10 to November 30, 2004.

Contents

[edit] Pergamon Altar (3 votes in 1 week)

Nominated November 4, 2004; needs 5 votes by November 11, 2004

Support:

  1. KNewman 20:50, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  2. ✏ Sverdrup
  3. PedanticallySpeaking 16:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Note to curious: The Pergamon Altar is a magnificent structure that can be seen in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin. ✏ Sverdrup 15:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed; from Pergamon, no less. Is there that much more to be said than is in those articles? I wonder if this is a touch too specific... -- ALoan (Talk) 16:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, as for me, I would definitely want to know more about this structure, considering the fact that there was a rumor that the architect of Lenin's tomb had designed his mausoleum after the Pergamon Altar. KNewman 20:46, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stunt (5 votes in two weeks)

Nominated October 30, 2004; needs 10 votes by November 13, 2004

Support:

  1. violet/riga (t) 23:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 07:48, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Aramգուտանգ 23:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Burgundavia 03:00, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Has the barebones of an article but is still a stub that could be expanded to include the history of stunt work. violet/riga (t) 23:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Should be much expanded. I read an article on CBBC newsround about the youngest British stuntwoman not so long ago. If only we could get our hands on her last name, it should really be included. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 07:48, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • An exciting topic that would be fun to research. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --AndyL 03:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Left Opposition (6 votes in 2 weeks)

Nominated October 30, 2004; needs 10 votes by November 13, 2004

Support:

  1. AndyL 17:31, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Shorne 13:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. KNewman 14:18, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  4. NeoJustin 03:08 Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Warofdreams 17:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Rj 17:13, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  7. --Martin Wisse 11:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Two and a half paragraphs and a list of names for an important participant of 1920s Soviet history. We can do better!
  • Agreed. This article doesn't even describe the position of the so-called Left Opposition. Shorne 13:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --AndyL 14:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Artificial island (13 votes in 3 weeks)

Nominated October 25, 2004; needs 15 votes by November 15, 2004

Support:

  1. Pharos 04:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Litefantastic 10:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Passw0rd 14:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Che Fox 15:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Golbez 22:06, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Conti|✉ 22:15, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Sarge Baldy 00:40, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Burgundavia 03:06, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  9. PlasmaDragon 19:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. David 5000 21:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  11. minnesotaflipsta 19:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  12. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 07:45, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Sextus 03:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Currently redirects to a rather incomplete list; This is a great topic of real map-shaping excitement encompassing everything from ancient civilizations to futuristic proposals, this subject being otherwise impossible to find treated comprehensively and historically.--Pharos 04:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll take it! -Litefantastic 10:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely important. --Golbez 22:06, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've given a preliminary start to the article, to whet the appetite and give an idea of the breadth of this topic to the unconvinced. I also linked a number of existing articles there, and you can see the category I've compiled of artificial islands. I hope noone will accuse me of preemptory destubbing; there is still much more to be done.--Pharos 02:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Confederate States Navy (11 votes in 3 weeks)

Nominated October 25, 2004; needs 15 votes by November 15, 2004

Support:

  1. McMullen 16:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 16:11, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Golbez 22:07, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  4. NeoJustin 02:16, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jason 02:20, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)Jason
  6. PedanticallySpeaking 16:07, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Sam [Spade] 21:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 01:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. Burgundavia 03:04, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  10. RJH 18:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  11. enceladus 21:48, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Nothing but a sub-stub? Important historical topic that needs much expansion. McMullen 16:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure they made the first submarine. NeoJustin 02:18, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • The CSS Hunley was a significant early submarine but certainly not the first.--Pharos 03:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • It was the first one to make a confirmed kill, I believe.
        • There was a history channel special about the sub a couple of weeks ago. Very interesting. It sunk a very large ship near the end of the war.

--Golbez 18:23, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --AndyL 23:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Erwin Rommel (not a stub)

Nominated November 15; needs 5 votes by November 22

Support:

  1. Etaonish 22:32, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The article is already quite developed. Too much so to be a COTW candidate under the guidelines. AndyL 23:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The article on Rommel is actually much bigger than the one on the History of Tunisia, where he fought with the allies. KNewman 02:05, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

[edit] Hard hat (4 votes in 1 week)

Nominated November 10; needs 5 votes by November 17

Support:

  1. Litefantastic 15:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. enceladus 01:52, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  3. ZayZayEM 02:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. ALoan (Talk) 14:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I know a lot more could be said about this. -Litefantastic 15:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of Internet stations (1 vote in 1 week)

Nominated November 11; needs 5 votes by November 18

Support:

  1. Erauch 20:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This would be an ideal Wikipedia project. There have been numerous attempts to put comprehensive lists together on the web, but there is no easy way to add stations to them, and they often succumb to link rot.
At present, the article is merely a list of a few homepages of stations that provide streaming. Linking to stations' homepages, however, is not very useful. In lists of this type, one has to spend a minute each time searching for the streaming link, if it is even there at all. I propose the following guidelines:
1. Each station entry should include a link directly to the stream, so that one click on the link brings up the audio stream in an audio player. The only exception should be when the station deliberately prevents this by technical means.
2. Where available, each station should have a link to the schedule.
Here is an example entry:
A number of lists could be used as sources:
See also Celtic Radio on the Internet for other examples of direct links to streams.
  • Lists don't make for very good collaborations of the week, I don't think..,Besides, the list is already pretty long. And remember; Wikipedia is not a web directory. — David Remahl 20:19, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Length is not what matters; quality does. For that reason, lists can be ideal collaborations. In fact, there is no better place than Wikipedia to create such lists. Have a look at the list of carfree places. . Erauch 04:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --AndyL 12:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Furniture (7 votes in 2 weeks)

Nominated November 9; needs 10 votes by November 23

Support:

  1. Donar Reiskoffer 10:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Warofdreams 12:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Tuf-Kat 03:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  4. ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Joyous 23:52, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Burgundavia 04:29, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  7. NeoJustin 17:32, Nov. 22, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --AndyL 05:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dance (1 vote in 1 week)

Nominated November 19; needs 5 votes by November 26

Though there seems to be some support for reforming the CotW process, only one person has commented (in support) in favor of my suggestion on the talk page. So, I am boldly nominating the subject of dance as a Collaboration of the Week. I am proposing that one be allowed to either submit a single stub article as a nominee, or choose a subject with a number of articles, resources and tasks. Feel free to note one's support for the idea though not the topic of dance. Tuf-Kat 21:29, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Links:

Support:

  • Tuf-Kat 21:29, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I have been led to believe that the German, Dutch and Japanese 'pedias do something akin to this, but I don't speak any of those languages. I think the benefits are obvious:
  1. it takes a bit more to nominate a subject, so the list of nominees will be shorter, meaning less of a wait time before nomination and collaboration
  2. allowing both options (either a single stub article or an entire subject) greatly expands the suitable subjects for collaboration
  3. the inclusion of a number of articles on broad subjects, with useful resources attached will make it easier for contributors to choose an area to help out in
  • Tuf-Kat 21:29, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about, exactly? -Litefantastic 13:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Collaborating on a subject with a few set goals instead of a single article. Tuf-Kat 03:37, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • Interesting. We could have a seperate page for it. 'Cavalcade of the Week', or something like that. -Litefantastic 23:28, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I like this idea to expand COTW to something Qualitätsoffensive-like. However, I don't have any interest in dance. :-/ ✏ Sverdrup 23:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it should be a separate page... Tuf-Kat 03:37, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --AndyL 05:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of England (8 votes in 2 weeks)

Nominated November 16, needs 10 votes by November 30

Support:

  1. Wonderfool 11:56, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. McMullen 13:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. ALoan (Talk) 14:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Graham ☺ | Talk 16:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. AndyL 00:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Grunners 14:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. NeoJustin 03:26, Nov. 23 2004 (UTC)
  8. Rho 07:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. --AndyL 13:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Indian reservation (34 votes in 7 weeks)

Nominated October 12, 2004; needs 35 votes by November 30, 2004

Support:

  1. Ce garcon 08:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Tuf-Kat 18:42, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Shorne 21:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Maurreen 02:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Conti|✉ 12:47, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  6. jengod 20:07, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Rmhermen 15:10, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  8. KNewman 20:18, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Golbez 21:40, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  10. NeoJustin 02:05 Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Metahacker 02:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. Bearcat 04:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. GuloGuloGulo 20:34, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  14. PedanticallySpeaking 16:06, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  15. older≠wiser 15:59, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Sam [Spade] 21:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  17. Rmhermen 13:08, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  18. Jmabel | Talk 18:48, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  19. Aramգուտանգ 23:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  20. AndyL 05:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  21. Ornil 04:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  22. llywrch 19:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  23. john k 23:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  24. Joyous 23:51, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  25. Amgine 23:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  26. The Anome 23:56, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  27. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:39, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  28. Felix Wan 22:10, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
  29. The KoG | (talk) 02:02, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  30. FZ 05:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  31. PZFUN 20:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  32. Bogdan | Talk 12:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  33. Vin UTC/GMT is 15:31 on Friday, November 26, 2004

Comments:

  • There seems to be a separate article on Canadian Indian reserves which is much better. This article is rather terrible, and could use much more on what makes reservations legally special, the history of the institution, etc. Tuf-Kat 18:42, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I thought Native American reservation was the generally accepted term these days? Not being from the USA I went into the article expecting it to be about India. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It's funny...Native American has replaced Indian in many ways, but many "Indians" refer to themselves as just that, and the term remains in place in phrases like "Indian summer" and institutions like Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian casino.
    • The parts of South Dakota where the Native American people live are generally refered to as "Indian Country", apparently even by Native Americans. Morris 01:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

jengod 23:25, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't think I have ever heard the term Native American reservation. They are called Indian Reservations and this article needs some help. NeoJustin 02:07 Oct 22, 2004
  • Oh, dear. That article definitely needs to be a lot longer and more detailed than it is. Bearcat 04:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Also watch the german article --Napa 15:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Note I have nominated this for US Collaboration of the Week as well. Tuf-Kat
  • We should also try to work on getting articles in place on individual reservations, no? john k 23:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Only a timely self-reversion by a supporter prevented this registered user (with little or no history of editing related articles) from at least agonizing out loud here about wanting to vote against this article in response to being spammed by that supporter. Hmm, maybe that agonizing out loud wasn't prevented. Sorry, never' a COTW reader and wrong time to start.

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Knesset (7 votes in 2 weeks)

Nominated November 16; needs 10 votes by November 30

Support:

  1. Penta 22:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. ALoan (Talk) 14:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  4. ⇒ whkoh [talk] 00:24, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  5. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 00:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. PedanticallySpeaking 19:40, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  7. FZ 05:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This article could and probably should be expanded. The Knesset has a double-role that's still important, and usually missed. --Penta 22:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It perhaps should be expanded and should be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for expansion but it's too long to be a COTW candidate. Please see the notice on the top of this page under "Considerations for nominations": Please only nominate articles which don't currently exist or are stubs. (Two paragraphs or less of information or fewer than 1,000 characters)AndyL 22:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • AndyL is right. Delete this. Shorne 03:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The article about Underground Railroad was just a bit shorter than this one when it was nominated. And it was OK. KNewman 12:08, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm stating my reasons for not voting for this article and if you check the archives you'll see I've made similar comments about other COTW nominations. If other editors disagree with me that's fine. AndyL 13:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • AndyL has been consistent. I agree with him: this is far too long for a COTW. Shorne 00:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • While on the long side, Knesset is hardly in the same league as Erwin Rommel (the most recent candidate to be removed as "not a stub"). COTW is hardly pushed for space at the moment: unless people have strong views otherwise (in which case they can Be Bold), I would let this one have its chance. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

  • Lack of votes. -- AndyL 23:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/l/Wikipedia%7ECollaboration_of_the_week_Removed_2004_Archive_10_182f.html"